Court Saga Left Bruises, Balm

March 17, 2007|By LYNNE TUOHY; Courant Staff Writer

One year ago today, Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced that Supreme Court Chief Justice William J. Sullivan was resigning as helmsman of the judicial branch and that she would nominate Justice Peter T. Zarella to succeed him as chief justice.

The timing seemed odd, coming nearly three years before Sullivan's 70th birthday would mandate his retirement from a job he seemed to thoroughly enjoy. The choice of Zarella was no surprise.

FOR THE RECORD - Correction published March 23, 2007.The last name of Appellate Judge Chase T. Rogers, who has been nominated to be chief justice, was misspelled as Rodgers in a story on Page 1 Saturday.

He was Sullivan's protege and the court's only Republican. He was chairman of the branch's powerful rules committee, and had chaired the Criminal Justice Commission for five years. He had enjoyed a meteoric rise since then-Gov. John G. Rowland appointed him first to the Superior Court bench in 1996, elevated him to the Appellate Court a year later and then nominated him to the state's highest court in 2001.

Justice David M. Borden, by seniority and intellect, would have been heir apparent in an environment not fraught with politics. Rell, a Republican who inherited her title as governor through the resignation of a corrupt Rowland, was heading toward an election. Nominating a Democrat was unthinkable.

With her St. Patrick's Day announcement, Rell unwittingly set in motion a drama that would rival any Shakespearean tragedy.

Twelve months later, much of the smoke has cleared and it is easier now to understand why things happened when they did. And it has also become clear that the story ultimately would have significant consequences in how the state's court system performs the public's business.

Much remains conjecture. Sullivan will not comment beyond the forums at which he's already given sworn testimony -- the Judicial Review Council and the legislature's judiciary committee.

Sullivan is appealing a 15-day suspension meted out by the Judicial Review Council as well as findings that he compromised the independence and integrity of the judiciary and allowed his personal relationships to influence his judgment.

``We have this appeal pending, and I really think it better if I not make any comments,'' Sullivan's lawyer, Edward Maum Sheehy, said Friday.

The plot unfolded slowly, beginning with political acrimony and brinkmanship over the fact that Rell had not given legislative leaders advance notice of her intent to nominate Zarella, despite telegraphing that very intent to Sullivan during a private chat three months earlier.

Democrats Upset

It was political bad manners, and the Democratic co-chairmen of the judiciary committee -- Sen. Andrew McDonald and Rep. Michael Lawlor -- responded by imploring that she postpone formal nomination of Zarella until after the congested legislative session. They even asked Sullivan to stave off his resignation until January 2007.

No go. Political hardball was firmly in play.

It escalated to a judicial scandal when Borden, as acting chief justice, informed the judiciary committee on April 24 -- the day the committee was scheduled to vote on Zarella's nomination -- that Sullivan had secretly held up release of a controversial ruling to help Zarella win approval.

The hold had been discovered during a routine inquiry by one justice into the status of the ruling, which held 4-3 that the public was not entitled to access electronic motor vehicle and criminal dockets under the state's Freedom of Information Act. Sullivan had authored the ruling; Zarella joined him in the majority.

What would not be revealed until months later was that the other six justices of the high court, in the course of two meetings on back-to-back days before Borden's revelation, anguished over whether the court as an institution should refer Sullivan to the Judicial Review Council. The vote was tied 3-3. What would later raise eyebrows was that Zarella participated in the vote with his nomination at stake.

Borden took it upon himself to file a complaint with the Judicial Review Council, an act that drew him both praise and recrimination. Sullivan's lawyers, during council hearings in fall 2006, would challenge his motives and portray him as bitter about being passed over for the nomination. The Judicial Review Council, in its final report on the Sullivan hearings, went out of its way to laud Borden's courage and selflessness.

``It seems to me Borden himself has done a lot to restore public confidence in the court,'' said attorney Wesley Horton, a constitutional scholar and one of the most vigilant observers of Connecticut's high court. ``Borden has gone out of his way to do what he can to repair the damage that was done by Sullivan.'' Rell said Sullivan first broached the possibility he might resign as chief justice during a meeting the two had on Dec. 13, 2005.